The three evidences of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), that the apparent contemporary atmospheric CO2 increase is anthropogenic,
is discussed and rejected: CO2 measurements from ice cores; CO2 measurements in
air; and carbon isotope data in conjunction with carbon cycle modelling.

It is shown why the ice core method and its results must be rejected; and that
current air CO2 measurements are not validated and their results subjectively "edited".
Further it is shown that carbon cycle modelling based on non-equilibrium models,
remote from observed reality and chemical laws, made to fit non-representative data
through the use of non-linear ocean evasion "buffer" correction factors constructed from
a pre-conceived idea, constitute a circular argument and with no scientific validity.

Both radioactive and stable carbon isotopes show that the real atmospheric CO2
residence time (lifetime) is only about 5 years, and that the amount of fossil-fuel CO2
in the atmosphere is maximum 4%. Any CO2 level rise beyond this can only come from
a much larger, but natural, carbon reservoir with much higher 13-C/12-C isotope ratio
than that of the fossil fuel pool, namely from the ocean, and/or the lithosphere, and/or
the Earth's interior.

The apparent annual atmospheric CO2 level increase, postulated to be
anthropogenic, would constitute only some 0.2% of the total annual amount of CO2
exchanged naturally between the atmosphere and the ocean plus other natural sources
and sinks. It is more probable that such a small ripple in the annual natural flow of CO2
would be caused by natural fluctuations of geophysical processes.

13-C/12-C isotope mass balance calculations show that IPCC's atmospheric
residence time of 50-200 years make the atmosphere too light (50% of its current CO2
mass) to fit its measured 13-C/12-C isotope ratio. This proves why IPCC's wrong model
creates its artificial 50% "missing sink". IPCC's 50% inexplicable "missing sink" of about
3 giga-tonnes carbon annually should have led all governments to reject IPCC's model.
When such rejection has not yet occurred, it beautifully shows the result of the "scare-them-to-death" influence principle.

The atmospheric CO2 is as important as oxygen for life on Earth. Without CO2 the plant
photosynthetic metabolism would not be possible, and the present life-forms on Earth
would vanish. Over the last years it has been constructed a dogma that an apparent
increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is caused by anthropogenic burning of fossil
carbon in the forms of petroleum, coal, and natural gas. This extra atmospheric CO2
has been claimed to cause global climatic change with a significant atmospheric
temperature rise of 1.5 to 4.5°C in the next decennium (Houghton et al., 1990).

There is then indeed a paradox that CO2, "The Gas of Life", is now being
condemned as the evil "polluting" gas, a gas which will be a threat to people's living on
Earth, through a postulated "Global Warming". Even more so when earlier warmer
periods in the Earth's history have been characterized as "Climatic Optimum". The
construction of the "CO2 Greenhouse Effect Doom" dogma, based on atmospheric CO2
level measurements in air and ice cores, carbon cycle modelling, CO2 residence time
(lifetime is here used synonymously), and carbon isotopes, is here examined, and the
dogma is rejected on geochemical grounds.

2. The construction of dogmas

In natural sciences the scientific method is based on the testing of hypotheses with the
help of (1) empiric observations, (2) laboratory experiments, and (3) theory based on
these. If these three parts give identical results, and the theory also is so robust that
it will predict future results which will be identical to new observations and experiments,
we have found a hypothesis with high significance. With further testing this hypothesis
can be exalted to a law of nature, which in turn can be used to reject other hypotheses
not supported by observations and experiments. It is of course fundamental that all
three major parts of the scientific method is based on sound statistical procedures
regarding sampling theory, data representation, significance, error propagation,
causality, etc., and should be unbiased and free of advocacy. If any parts of the
evidence does not support the hypothesis, the hypothesis should be rejected
(Churchman, 1948).

Over the last years, mainly after the fall of the communism, environmentalism
seems to have taken the vacant place on the political scene. This new "ism" alleges
that Man is destructive, unnatural, evil, and guilty of destructing the environment on this
planet. The "proofs" used in this respect are based on selected portions of science, in
many cases not based on the objectivity of the scientific method of natural sciences
(Sanford, 1992).

Rather the "proofs" concert rejection of reason, and are based on the scientific
method of philosophy, where the fundamental 3 parts of the scientific method of natural
sciences do not apply. In natural sciences knowledge is obtained by validating the
content of one's mind according to the facts of reality. Truth then corresponds to reality.
In philosophy the world is artificial, and truth is redefined to mean coherence among
ideas, along the views of the philosopher Immanuel Kant. Hence a dogma can be
constructed by ignoring reality, and rather appealing to authority or consensus as
invalid substitutes for reason. In philosophy hypotheses can be proposed, validated,
and accepted without reference to facts (Sanford, 1992). We see that most often the
treatment of what is normal or natural is lacking from the environmental "dooms", and
that we only are told what is "abnormal" or "unnatural" without an indisputable baseline
reference.

To construct a dogma the methodology is to start with an idea one feels correct and
then finding evidence to support it. Reason will then have to be substituted by intuition,
belief, faith, emotions, or feelings as the ultimate source of knowledge. Sanford (1992)
further points out that the "ecosopher" Arne Næss (1990) begins a book with the
section "Beginning with intuitions" and a feeling of "our world in crisis". The dogma will
be accepted as truth by the people at large if it will be supported by "authorities",
"experts", and well-known important people, not necessarily with their expertise in the
relevant field; and especially so if the dogma is being supported by international bodies
or assemblies, and given a wide and one-sided coverage by the media. The dogma will
be even more appealing if it appears as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The marketing and influence, i.e. the psychology of persuasion of a dogma, will
therefore be important for it to be accepted as truth. The greater the number of people
who find any idea correct, the more the idea will appear to be correct among people.
People are usually not able to use all relevant information available. They use instead
only a single, highly representative piece of the relevant information. When something
is presented as a scary scenario, it creates an emotional reaction that makes it difficult
to think straight (i.e. consider all facts), especially if there has been created a belief that
decisions regarding a common crisis will have to be made fast (Cialdini, 1993). This is
what has been called the "scare-them-to-death" approach (Böttcher, 1996), and makes
the foundation for creating a doomsday dogma. Stephen Schneider, a climatologist and
leading proponent of the global warming theory, says: "To capture the public
imagination ... we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic
statements and little mention of any doubts one might have", thereby acting as an
advocate for his subjective belief in the "Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma
rather than as an objective scientist (Sanford, 1992).

A doomsday dogma made under these conditions will very likely cause a political
turmoil. The old saying "Everybody talks about the weather, and nobody does anything
about it" is claimed to be invalid when Man's burning of fossil fuel allegedly will change
the world's climates. The creation of a "CO2 Greenhouse Effect Doom" dogma will
easily give more power and money to politicians and people at power, letting them
introduce legislation and taxation on energy consumption and people's way of living by
implementing policies infringing on people's technology, industry, and freedom.

3. The foundation of the CO2 dogma - early atmospheric CO2 measurements

In order to construct a "CO2 Greenhouse Effect Doom" dogma, it will be necessary to
justify that (1) pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 was lower than today, (2) atmospheric
CO2 has steadily risen from its pre-industrial level to today's level, (3) Man's burning
of fossil fuel is causing an increase in atmospheric CO2 level, (4) hence atmospheric
CO2 must have a long residence time (lifetime), and (5) atmospheric temperatures are
increasing due to Man's burning of fossil fuel.

Callendar (1938) revived the hypothesis of "Greenhouse Warming" due to Man's
activity, proposed by Arrhenius (1896). Callendar may truly be regarded as the father
of the current dogma on man-induced global warming (Jaworowski et al., 1992 b). In
order to support his hypothesis, Callendar (1940, 1958) selected atmospheric CO2 data
from the 19th and 20th centuries. Fonselius et al. (1956) showed that the raw data
ranged randomly between about 250 and 550 ppmv (parts per million by volume) during
this time period, but by selecting the data carefully Callendar was able to present a
steadily rising trend from about 290 ppmv for the period 1866 - 1900, to 325 ppmv in
1956.

Callendar was strongly criticized by Slocum (1955), who pointed out a strong bias
in Callendar's data selection method. Slocum pointed out that it was statistically
impossible to find a trend in the raw data set, and that the total data set showed a
constant average of about 335 ppmv over this period from the 19th to the 20th century.
Bray (1959) also criticized the selection method of Callendar, who rejected values 10%
or more different from the "general average", and even more so when Callendar's
"general average" was neither defined nor given.

Note that Callendar (1940) wrote: "There is, of course, no danger that the amount
of CO2 in the air will become uncomfortably large because as soon as the excess
pressure in the air becomes appreciable, say about 0.0003 atmos., the sea will be able
to absorb this gas as fast as it is likely to be produced."

Callendar (1949) repeated this fact, but went on to say: "As the deep waters of the
sea move slowly and only shallow contact surface is involved in the carbon-dioxide
equilibrium, this reservoir does not immediately control a sudden eruption of the gas
such as has occurred this century. It will be hundreds or perhaps thousands of years
before the sea absorbs its fair share." Callendar believed that nearly all the CO2
produced by fossil fuel combustion has remained in the atmosphere. He suggested that
the increase in atmospheric CO2 may account for the observed slight rise in average
temperature in northern latitudes during the recent decades.

The "CO2 Greenhouse Effect Doom" was being substantiated by Revelle & Suess
(1957) who wrote: "Thus human beings are now carrying out a large scale geophysical
experiment of a kind which could not have happened in the past nor be reproduced in
the future. Within a few centuries we are returning to the air and oceans the
concentrated organic carbon stored over hundreds of millions of years." But by
considering the chemical facts on the exchange of CO2 between the atmosphere and
the ocean, they concluded that only a total increase of 20 to 40% in atmospheric CO2
can be anticipated by burning all fossil fuel. This is comparable to the 20% increase
calculated by Segalstad from the air/sea CO2 partition coefficient given by chemical
equilibrium constants (Segalstad, 1996).

At the same time Craig (1957) pointed out from the natural (by cosmic rays)
radiocarbon (14-C) production rate that atmospheric CO2 is in active exchange with
very large CO2 reservoirs in the ocean and biosphere. However, Callendar (1958) had
apparently more faith in his carefully selected CO2 data, because he commented
Craig's conclusion by writing: "Thus, if the increase shown by the measurements
discussed here is even approximately representative of the whole atmosphere, it means
that the oceans have not been accepting additional CO2 on anything like the expected
scale."

4. The building of the dogma - recent atmospheric CO2 measurements

The stir around the atmospheric CO2 data selected by Callendar made it necessary to
start compiling analytical data of contemporary atmospheric CO2. 19 North-European
stations measured atmospheric CO2 over a 5 year period from 1955 to 1959. Measuring
with a wet-chemical technique the atmospheric CO2 level was found to vary between
approximately 270 and 380 ppmv, with annual means of 315 - 331 ppmv, and there was
no tendency of rising or falling atmospheric CO2 level at any of the 19 stations during
this 5 year period (Bischof, 1960). The data are particularly important because they are
unselected and therefore free of potential biases from selection procedures, unlike the
CO2 measurements based on the procedures at Mauna Loa (see below). Note that
these measurements were taken in an industrial region, and would indeed have shown
an increase in CO2 levels if increasing amounts of anthropogenic CO2 were
accumulating in the atmosphere during this period.

During the same period atmospheric CO2 measurements were started near the top
of the strongly CO2-emitting (e.g., Ryan, 1995) Hawaiian Mauna Loa volcano. The
reason for the choice of location was that it should be far away from CO2-emitting
industrial areas. At the Mauna Loa Observatory the measurements were taken with a
new infra-red (IR) absorbing instrumental method, never validated versus the accurate
wet chemical techniques. Critique has also been directed to the analytical methodology
and sampling error problems (Jaworowski et al., 1992 a; and Segalstad, 1996, for
further references), and the fact that the results of the measurements were "edited"
(Bacastow et al., 1985); large portions of raw data were rejected, leaving just a small
fraction of the raw data subjected to averaging techniques (Pales & Keeling, 1965).

The acknowledgement in the paper by Pales & Keeling (1965) describes how the
Mauna Loa CO2 monitoring program started: "The Scripps program to monitor CO2 in
the atmosphere and oceans was conceived and initiated by Dr. Roger Revelle who was
director of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography while the present work was in
progress. Revelle foresaw the geochemical implications of the rise in atmospheric CO2
resulting from fossil fuel combustion, and he sought means to ensure that this 'large
scale geophysical experiment', as he termed it, would be adequately documented as
it occurred. During all stages of the present work Revelle was mentor, consultant,
antagonist. He shared with us his broad knowledge of earth science and appreciation
for the oceans and atmosphere as they really exist, and he inspired us to keep in sight
the objectives which he had originally persuaded us to accept." Is this the description
of true, unbiased research?

The annual mean CO2 level as reported from Mauna Loa for 1959 was 315.83 ppmv
(15 ppmv lower than the contemporaneous North-European average level), reportedly
rising steadily to 351.45 in January 1989 (Keeling et al., 1989), by averaging large daily
and seasonal variations (the significance of all their digits not justified), but still within
the range of the North European measurements 30-35 years earlier. Hence a rise in
global atmospheric CO2 level has not yet been significantly justified by validated
methods and sound statistics.

5. Setting the dogma baseline - CO2 measurements in ice cores

In order to show that recent atmospheric CO2 levels have risen due to Man's burning
of fossil fuel, it was necessary to show a significant level increase above pre-industrial
CO2 levels. We saw how Callendar was able to set a baseline of about 290 ppmv by
rejecting values deviating more than 10% from his desired value.

It was believed that snow accumulating on ice sheets would preserve the
contemporaneous atmosphere trapped between snowflakes during snowfalls, so that
the CO2 content of air inclusions in cores from ice sheets should reveal
paleoatmospheric CO2 levels. Jaworowski et al. (1992 b) compiled all such CO2 data
available, finding that CO2 levels ranged from 140 to 7,400 ppmv. However, such
paleoatmospheric CO2 levels published after 1985 were never reported to be higher
than 330 ppmv. Analyses reported in 1982 (Neftel at al., 1982) from the more than
2,000 m deep Byrd ice core (Antarctica), showing unsystematic values from about 190
to 420 ppmv, were falsely "filtered" when the alleged same data showed a rising trend
from about 190 ppmv at 35,000 years ago to about 290 ppmv (Callendar's pre-industrial
baseline) at 4,000 years ago when re-reported in 1988 (Neftel et al., 1988); shown by
Jaworowski et al. (1992 b) in their Fig. 5.

Siegenthaler & Oeschger (1987) were going to make "model calculations that are
based on the assumption that the atmospheric [CO2] increase is due to fossil CO2 input"
and other human activities. For this modelling they constructed a composite diagram
of CO2 level data from Mauna Loa and the Siple (Antarctica) core (see Jaworowski et
al., 1992 b, Fig. 10). The data from the Siple core (Neftel et al., 1985) showed the
"best" data in terms of a rising CO2 trend. Part of the reason for this was that the core
partially melted across the Equator during transportation before it was analysed
(Etheridge et al., 1988), but this was neither mentioned by the analysts nor the
researchers later using the data (see Jaworowski et al., 1992 b). Rather it was
characterized as "the excellent quality of the ice core" and its CO2 concentration data
"are assumed to represent the global mean concentration history and used as input
data to the model" (Siegenthaler & Oeschger, 1987). The two CO2 level curves were
constructed to overlap each other, but they would not match at corresponding age.

In order to make a matching construction between the two age-different non-overlapping curves, it was necessary to make the assumption that the age of the gas
inclusion air would have to be 95 years younger than the age of the enclosing ice. But
this was not mentioned by the originators Siegenthaler & Oeschger (1987). This
artificial construction has been used as a basis for numerous speculative models of
changes in the global carbon cycle.

Oeschger et al. (1985) postulated this "air younger than enclosing ice" thesis from
an explanation that the upper 70 m of the ice sheets should be open to air circulation
until the gas cavities were sealed. Jaworowski et al. (1992 b) rejected this postulate on
the basis that air is constantly driven out of the snow, firn, and ice strata during the
snow to ice compression and metamorphism, so that ice deeper than about 1,000 m will
have lost all original air inclusions. Deep ice cores will fracture when they are taken to
the surface, and ambient air will be trapped in new, secondary inclusions. Both argon-39 and krypton-85 isotopes show that large amounts of ambient air are indeed included
in the air inclusions in deep ice cores, and air from the inclusions will not be
representative of paleoatmospheres (Jaworowski et al., 1992 b).

Contamination from drilling fluids and more than twenty physical-chemical
processes occurring in the ice before, during, and after drilling, make ice cores
unsuitable for paleoatmospheric work (Jaworowski et al., 1992 b).

The most famous ice core, the Vostok (Antarctica) core, with air inclusions allegedly
representing the global paleoatmospheres over the last 160,000 years, show CO2
levels below 200 ppmv for many tens of thousands of years spanning 30,000 to
110,000 years BP (Barnola et al., 1987). "Most geochemists were convinced that
changes such as these could not occur", says Sarmiento (1991) about these low
alleged paleoatmospheric CO2 levels. Such low atmospheric CO2 levels below
approximately 250 ppmv (McKay et al., 1991) would have led to extinction of certain
plant species. This has not been recorded by paleobotanists, showing clearly that the
ice core CO2 results are not representative of paleoatmospheres (Jaworowski et al.,
1992 b), hence the CO2-ice-core-method and its results must be rejected.

6. Justifying the dogma - carbon cycle modelling vs. reality

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses "carbon cycle modelling"
as part of one of their 3 evidences that the observed atmospheric CO2 increase is
indeed anthropogenic (Houghton et al., 1990; page 14, Section 1.2.5 called "Evidence
that the contemporary carbon dioxide increase in anthropogenic", last sentence:
"qualitatively consistent with results from carbon cycle modelling").

The present chairman of IPCC, Bert Bolin, entered the "Greenhouse Effect Global
Warming" scene with his Bolin & Eriksson (1959) paper. Here they expand on the belief
of Callendar (1958) that his apparent atmospheric CO2 increase must be
anthropogenic, and that the reason for this is that the ocean is not dissolving the
atmospheric CO2 which the chemical laws (cf. Henry's Law) say it should.

Bolin & Eriksson (1959) correctly state: "First we see that if the partial pressure of
CO2 varies and the hydrogen ion concentration were kept constant, the relative changes
would be the same in the sea as in the atmosphere. As the total amount of CO2 in the
sea is about 50 times that in the air, practically all excess CO2 delivered to the
atmosphere would be taken up by the sea when equilibrium has been established."
They further cite Revelle & Suess (1957) that: "most of the CO2 due to combustion has
been transferred into the ocean and that a net increase of CO2 in the atmosphere of
only a few percent has actually occurred. Callendar's deduction has therefore been
rejected". They also accept an atmospheric lifetime of about 5 years. This is all in
accordance with the laws of chemistry and the carbon isotope ratios of the atmospheric
CO2 (Segalstad, 1996).

Such a situation would not fit the heavily criticized atmospheric CO2 level rise
constructed by Callendar (1958) as characterized by Bolin & Eriksson (1959) as:
"deduced from a careful survey of all available measurements". Bolin & Eriksson (1959)
goes on to model an ocean without its primary chemical buffer agent calcium carbonate
and without organic matter (like all later carbon cycle modellers also have done). They
further cite from the discussion of Revelle & Suess (1957) that the sea could have a
"buffer" factor: "a buffer mechanism acting in such a way that a 10% increase of the
CO2-content of the atmosphere need merely be balanced by an increase of about 1%
of the total CO2 content in sea water to reach a new equilibrium". . . . "The low buffering
capacity of the sea mentioned by Revelle and Suess is due to a change in the
dissociation equilibrium between CO2 and H2CO3 on one hand and HCO3[-]and CO3[2-]ions on the other."

They neglect, however, the conclusion from the discussion by Revelle & Suess
(1957, page 25): "It seems therefore quite improbable that an increase in the
atmospheric CO2 concentration of as much as 10% could have been caused by
industrial fuel combustion during the past century, as Callendar's statistical analyses
indicate."

It is appropriate as this point to add that if Bolin & Eriksson's conditions in the last
paragraph were true, carbonated beer (Bohren, 1987) and soda "pop" as we know it
would be an impossibility with their "buffer" factor (see below); rain and fresh water
would not show the observed equilibrium pH of 5.7 (Krauskopf, 1979); and experiments
would not had shown complete isotopic equilibrium between CO2 and water in just
hours, which in turn is the prerequisite for routine stable isotope analysis involving CO2
(Gonfiantini, 1981).

Experimentally it has been found that CO2 and pure water at 25 degrees C reaches
99% isotopic equilibrium after 30 hours and 52 minutes; after shaking (like wave
agitation) 99% equilibrium is reached after 4 hours and 37 minutes (Gonfiantini, 1981).
At 350 ppmv CO2 in the air, the equilibrium concentration of carbonic acid in pure water
will be about 0.00001 molal at 25 degrees C. This chemical equilibrium is reached
within 20 seconds (Stumm & Morgan, 1970). At the same temperature, at pH-values
between 7 and 9, CO2 reaches 99% chemical equilibrium with water and calcium
carbonate in about 100 seconds (Dreybrodt et al., 1996).

Carbonated beer, soda "pop", and champagne are good analogues to the CO2
distribution between atmosphere and ocean. In both cases they manifest the
equilibrium governed by Henry's Law: the partial pressure of CO2 in the air will be
proportional to the concentration of CO2 dissolved in water. The proportional constant
is the Henry's Law Constant, giving us a partition coefficient for CO2 between air and
water of approximately 1:50 (Revelle & Suess, 1957; Skirrow, 1975; Jaworowski et al.,
1992 a; Segalstad, 1996). We have all experienced that carbonated drinks contain
much more (about 50 times higher concentration) CO2 than the air under the bottle cap
above the carbonated water. This fact is in harsh contradiction to the Bolin & Eriksson's
"buffer" factor claim that the air will contain much more CO2 than the carbonated water,
when trying to increase the partial pressure of CO2 from the assumed pre-industrial
level of 290 ppmv (pressure less than 0.0003 atmospheres) to a pressure of about 3
atmospheres in the CO2 above the carbonated water in the brewed drink bottle.

Bolin & Eriksson's "buffer" factor would give about 10 times higher CO2
concentration in air vs. sea water at about 0.0003 atmospheres CO2 partial pressure,
increasing dramatically to an air/water CO2 partition coefficient of about 50:1 at a CO2
partial pressure of about 0.003 atmospheres (10 times the assumed pre-industrial level;
Bacastow & Keeling, 1973; see Section 7 below for more on the "buffer" factor).

From their untenable conditions Bolin & Eriksson state: "It is obvious that an
addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will only slightly change the CO2 content of the sea
but appreciably effect the CO2 content of the atmosphere." . . . "The decisive factor is
instead the rate of overturning of the deep sea." From: "the fact that the top layer of the
ocean only need to absorb a small amount of CO2 from the atmosphere", and a CO2
lifetime of 500 years for the deep ocean, Bolin & Eriksson (1959) reach the conclusion
that: "an increase of the atmosphere's content of CO2 of about 10 percent would have
occurred in 1954. This value compares very favourably with the value of 10% given by
Callendar (1958) as the total increase until 1955 deduced from a careful survey of all
available measurements." By over-simplifying the properties of the ocean the authors
were able to construct a non-equilibrium model remote from observed reality and
chemical laws, fitting the non-representative data of Callendar (1958).

At this point one should note that the ocean is composed of more than its 75 m thick
top layer and its deep, and that it indeed contains organics. The residence time of
suspended POC (particular organic carbon; carbon pool of about 1000 giga-tonnes;
some 130% of the atmospheric carbon pool) in the deep sea is only 5-10 years. This
alone would consume all possible man-made CO2 from the total fossil fuel reservoir
(some 7200 giga-tonnes) if burned during the next 300 years, because this covers 6
to 15 turnovers of the upper-ocean pool of POC, based on radiocarbon (carbon-14)
studies (Toggweiler, 1990; Druffel & Williams, 1990; see also Jaworowski et al.,
1992 a). The alleged long lifetime of 500 years for carbon diffusing to the deep ocean
is of no relevance to the debate on the fate of anthropogenic CO2 and the "Greenhouse
Effect", because POC can sink to the bottom of the ocean in less than a year
(Toggweiler, 1990).

7. Boost for the dogma - the evasion "buffer" factor

Bacastow & Keeling (1973) elaborate further on Bolin & Eriksson's ocean "buffer"
factor, calling it an "evasion factor" (also called the "Revelle factor"; Keeling &
Bacastow, 1977), because the "buffer" factor is not related to a buffer in the chemical
sense. A real buffer can namely be defined as a reaction system which modifies or
controls the value of an intensive (i.e. mass independent) thermodynamic variable
(pressure, temperature, concentration, pH, etc.). The carbonate system in the sea will
act as a pH buffer, by the presence of a weak acid (H2CO3) and a salt of the acid
(CaCO3). The concentration of CO2(g) in the atmosphere and of Ca2+(aq) in the ocean
will in the equilibrium Earth system also be buffered by the presence of CaCO3 at a
given temperature (Segalstad, 1996).

Bacastow & Keeling (1973) show their calculated evasion factors for average ocean
surface water as a function of "the partial pressure of CO2 exerted by the ocean surface
water, Pm, and the total inorganic carbon in the water", here designated Ctotal, relative
to the respective values they assumed for preindustrial times. The evasion factor is
constructed such that: "if industrial CO2 production continues to increase, however, the
evasion factor will rise with Pm according to the relation shown in Fig. 3. At the same
time the short-term capacity of the oceans to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere will
diminish" (Bacastow & Keeling, 1973). The evasion "buffer" factor is defined as

[ ( Pm - Pm,o ) / Pm,o] / [ ( Ctotal - Ctotal,o ) / Ctotal,o]

at constant sea water alkalinity. Pm,o and Ctotal,o are "preindustrial values" of Pm and Ctotal,
respectively (Bacastow & Keeling, 1973). Slightly different definitions are used in
various contexts (Kohlmaier, 1979). We clearly see that this evasion "buffer" factor is
ideologically defined from an assumed model (atmospheric anthropogenic CO2
increase) and an assumed pre-industrial value for the CO2 level. These assumed pre-industrial values are calculated by an iteration technique (Bacastow, 1981) from so-called "apparent dissociation constants", established from empiric measurements at
sea, but showing considerable variation between different authors (Takahashi et al.,
1976). "There continues to be considerable uncertainty as to the magnitude of the gas
exchange coefficient in the ocean", says Sarmiento (1991). The ideologically
constructed non-linear evasion "buffer" factor or "Revelle factor" is later referred to as
if it was established as a law of nature: "known from thermodynamic data" (Keeling &
Bacastow, 1977); a gross exaggeration, giving a false scientific credibility to the method
and the results from carbon cycle modelling using this "buffer" factor.

This is a beautiful example of circular logic in action, when such a construction as
the evasion factor is used in all carbon cycle models which the IPCC base their
anthropogenic CO2-level-rise evidence on. Using the evasion "buffer" factor instead of
the chemical Henry's Law will always explain any CO2 level rise as being
anthropogenic, because that very idea was the basis for the construction of the evasion
"buffer" correction factor.

The results of carbon cycle modelling using the evasion "buffer" factor is shown in
Table 1. Some go even further: according to Revelle & Munk (1977) "the atmospheric
carbon dioxide content could rise to about 5 times the preindustrial value in the early
part of the twenty-second century", i.e. in slightly more than 100 years from now.

After 1000 GTAfter 6000 GT

______________________________

Pre-in-

dustrialContent% in-Content% in-

content (GT)crease(GT)crease

Atmosphere700840201880170

Terrestrial system300031104365522

Ocean surface layer100010202111512

Deep ocean350003573023905012

Table 1. Carbon contents in giga-tonnes (GT) for a four-reservoir non-linear non-equilibrium model during the assumed initial pre-industrial situation, after the
introduction of 1,000 GT carbon, and after the introduction of 6,000 GT carbon in the
form of CO2 to the atmosphere, using an ideological evasion "buffer" correction factor
of about 9. The first introduction corresponds to the total input from fossil fuel up to
about the year 2000; the second is roughly equal to the known accessible reserves of
fossil carbon. After Rodhe (1992).

In linear systems the fluxes between the reservoirs are linearly related to the
reservoir contents, like in chemical equilibrium systems. In non-linear modelling, non-equilibrium complex relations are assumed, like for "logistical growth" models. The
results after introduction of carbon to the atmosphere in Table 1 is from a simplified
non-linear (non-chemical-equilibrium) non-steady state carbon cycle model with no
calcium carbonate and no sea organics. The ideological evasion "buffer" correction
factor is set at about 9. As a consequence of this factor a substantial increase in
atmospheric CO2 from introduction of a certain amount of fossil carbon is
mathematically balanced by a small increase in carbon in the sea layers. We see that
the non-linear relations introduced in these current carbon cycle models give rise to
substantial calculated variations between the reservoirs. The atmospheric reservoir is
in such simplified non-realistic models much more perturbed than any of the other
reservoirs (Rodhe, 1992). If this mechanism were true, it would be impossible for
breweries to put their CO2 in beer or soda "pop".

The non-linear modelling results in Table 1 have been made to explain the apparent
rise in atmospheric CO2 today of 20% (vs. an assumed pre-industrial level) from fossil
fuel burning by default, and predict a 170% increase in CO2 when we have burned all
our fossil fuel. The sea would in these models only see a maximum rise in CO2 of 12%.

Holmén (1992) emphasizes that such "box models and box diffusion models have
very few degrees of freedom and they must describe physical, chemical, and biological
processes very crudely. They are based on empirical relations rather than on first
principles."

8. Trouble for the dogma - the CO2 "missing sink"

The next problem is that the Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 level increase only accounts
for approximately 50% of the expected increase from looking at the amount of CO2
formed from production data for the burning of fossil fuels (e.g., Kerr, 1992). This
annual discrepancy of some 3 giga-tonnes of carbon is in the literature called "the
missing sink" (analogous to "the missing link"; Holmén, 1992). When trying to find this
"missing sink" in the biosphere, carbon cycle modelling has shown that deforestation
must have contributed a large amount of CO2 to the atmosphere. So instead of finding
"the missing sink" in the terrestrial biosphere, they find another CO2 source! This
makes "the missing sink" problem yet more severe.

Trabalka (1985) summarizes the status of carbon cycle modelling and its missing
sinks (Trabalka et al., 1985) by: "As a first approximation in the validation of models, it
should be possible to compute a balanced global carbon budget for the contemporary
period; to date this has not been achievable and the reasons are still uncertain." . . .
"These models produce estimates of past atmospheric CO2 levels that are inconsistent
with the historical atmospheric CO2 increase. This inconsistency implies that significant
errors in projections are possible using current carbon cycle models."

Bolin's (1986) conclusion regarding carbon cycle models is on the contrary: "We
understand the basic features of the global carbon cycle quite well. It has been possible
to construct quantitative models which can be used as a general guide for the projection
of future CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere as a result of given emission scenarios".
This is in high contrast to Holmén (1992), who concludes his book chapter on "The
Global Carbon Cycle" with: "obviously our knowledge of the global cycle of carbon is
inadequate to get ends to meet".

A 50% error, i.e. the enormous amount of about 3 giga-tonnes of carbon annually
not explained by a model, would normally lead to complete rejection of the model and
its hypothesis using the scientific method of natural sciences. Still the 50% inexplicable
error in the IPCC argumentation has strangely enough not yet caused all governments
to reject the IPCC model. This fact beautifully shows the result of the "scare-them-to-death" principle (Section 2 above).

9. Problems for the dogma - CO2 residence time

A number of lifetimes and timescales are being used in both scientific and policy
context to describe the behavior of heat-absorbing gases in the atmosphere. These
concepts are very important for the discussion on whether anthropogenic CO2 will be
accumulated in the atmosphere and exert an additional global "Greenhouse Effect"
warming. If each CO2 molecule in the atmosphere has a short lifetime, it means that the
CO2 molecules will be removed fast from the atmosphere to be absorbed in another
reservoir.

A number of definitions for lifetimes of atmospheric CO2 has been introduced, like
"residence time", "transit time", "response time", "e-folding time", "turnover time",
"adjustment time", and more varieties of these (e.g., Rodhe, 1992; O'Neill et al., 1994;
Rodhe & Björkström, 1979), to try to explain why atmospheric CO2 allegedly cannot
have the short lifetime of approximately 5 years which numerous measurements of
different kinds show. It is being said that because we observe the atmospheric CO2
level increase, which apparently has not been dissolved by the sea, the turnover time
of atmospheric CO2"of the combined system" must be several hundred years (Rodhe,
1992).

IPCC defines lifetime for CO2 as the time required for the atmosphere to adjust to
a future equilibrium state if emissions change abruptly, and gives a lifetime of 50-200
years in parentheses (Houghton et al., 1990). Their footnote No. 4 to their Table 1.1
explains: "For each gas in the table, except CO2, the "lifetime" is defined here as the
ratio of the atmospheric content to the total rate of removal. This time scale also
characterizes the rate of adjustment of the atmospheric concentrations if the emission
rates are changed abruptly. CO2 is a special case since it has no real sinks, but is
merely circulated between various reservoirs (atmosphere, ocean, biota). The "lifetime"
of CO2 given in the table is a rough indication of the time it would take for the CO2
concentration to adjust to changes in the emissions . . .".

O'Neill et al. (1994) criticize the IPCC report (Houghton et al., 1990) because it
"offers no rigorous definition of lifetime; for the purpose of defining Global Warming
Potentials, it instead presents integrations of impulse-response functions over several
finite time intervals. Each of these estimates has its own strengths and weaknesses.
Taken together, however, they create confusion over what "lifetime" means, how to
calculate it, and how it relates to other timescales." IPCC's assertion that CO2 has no
real sinks, have been rejected elsewhere (Jaworowski et al., 1992 a; Segalstad, 1996).

The atmospheric residence time (i.e. lifetime; turnover time) of CO2 has been
quantified based on measurements of natural radiocarbon (carbon-14) levels in the
atmosphere and the ocean surface; the changes in those levels caused by
anthropogenic effects, like "bomb carbon-14" added to the atmosphere by nuclear
explosions; and the "Suess Effect" caused by the addition of old carbon-14-free CO2
from combustion of fossil fuels; and the application of gas exchange theory to rates
determined for the inert radioactive gas radon-222. The results from these
measurements are shown in Table 2, mainly based on the compilation by Sundquist
(1985), in addition to the solubility data of Murray (1992), and the carbon-13/carbon-12
mass-balance calculation of Segalstad (1992). Both of the last two recent methods
happened to give a lifetime of 5.4 years based on completely different methods.

Authors [publication year]Residence time (years)

Based on natural carbon-14

Craig [1957]7 +/- 3

Revelle & Suess [1957]7

Arnold & Anderson [1957]10

including living and dead biosphere

(Siegenthaler, 1989)4-9

Craig [1958]7 +/- 5

Bolin & Eriksson [1959]5

Broecker [1963], recalc. by Broecker & Peng [1974]8

Craig [1963]5-15

Keeling [1973b]7

Broecker [1974]9.2

Oeschger et al. [1975]6-9

Keeling [1979]7.53

Peng et al. [1979]7.6 (5.5-9.4)

Siegenthaler et al. [1980]7.5

Lal & Suess [1983]3-25

Siegenthaler [1983]7.9-10.6

Kratz et al. [1983]6.7

Based on Suess Effect

Ferguson [1958]2 (1-8)

Bacastow & Keeling [1973]6.3-7.0

Based on bomb carbon-14

Bien & Suess [1967]>10

Münnich & Roether [1967]5.4

Nydal [1968]5-10

Young & Fairhall [1968]4-6

Rafter & O'Brian [1970]12

Machta (1972)2

Broecker et al. [1980a]6.2-8.8

Stuiver [1980]6.8

Quay & Stuiver [1980]7.5

Delibrias [1980]6.0

Druffel & Suess [1983]12.5

Siegenthaler [1983]6.99-7.54

Based on radon-222

Broecker & Peng [1974]8

Peng et al. [1979]7.8-13.2

Peng et al. [1983]8.4

Based on solubility data

Murray (1992)5.4

Based on carbon-13/carbon-12 mass balance

Segalstad (1992)5.4

Table 2. Atmospheric residence time (i.e. lifetime, turnover time) of CO2, mainly based
on the compilation by Sundquist (1985; for references in brackets).

Judged from the data of Table 2 there is apparently very little disagreement from
early works to later works regardless of measurement method, that the atmospheric
CO2 lifetime is quite short, near 5 years. This fact was also acknowledged early by
IPCC's chairman Bolin (Bolin & Eriksson, 1959).

We should also note that a large number of the atmospheric CO2 lifetime
measurements are based on anthropogenic additions of CO2 to the atmosphere by
"bomb carbon-14". It is important for the understanding of the robustness of the ocean
to deal with the anthropogenic extra CO2 that the measured lifetimes are within the
same range as for natural carbon-14 before and after the nuclear bomb tests in the
early nineteen-sixties. They are also coincident with lifetimes found when considering
anthropogenic CO2 from Man's burning of fossil fuel, both from carbon-14 as well as for
carbon-13/carbon-12 isotopes. The measured lifetimes in Table 2 therefore represent
the real lifetime of atmospheric CO2 in dynamic contact with all its sources and sinks
with "perturbations" included. Hence other "lifetimes" found by non-linear carbon cycle
modelling are irrelevant.

The short atmospheric CO2 lifetime of 5 years means that CO2 quickly is being
taken out of the atmospheric reservoir, and that approximately 135 giga-tonnes (about
18%) of the atmospheric CO2 pool is exchanged each year. This large and fast natural
CO2 cycling flux is far more than the approximately 6 giga-tonnes of carbon in the
anthropogenic fossil fuel CO2 now contributed annually to the atmosphere, creating so
much political turmoil (Segalstad, 1992; 1996).

Supporters of the "Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma have apparently not
been satisfied with these facts based on numerous measurements and methods. They
go on by saying that because we observe the atmospheric CO2 level increase, it must
be caused by Man's burning of fossil fuel, and the "lifetime" of atmospheric CO2 must
be 50-200 years (Houghton et al., 1990). Hence, they say, when we construct non-linear (non-proportional and non-chemical-equilibrium) non-steady-state systems for
the fluxes between the ocean surface layer, the atmosphere, and the terrestrial system,
the decay time of man-made carbon into the atmosphere must be much longer than the
turn-over time (Rodhe & Björkström, 1979). Because if we now use a constructed
evasion "buffer" factor (Section 5 and 6 above) of 10, the atmospheric CO2 "lifetime"
will be 10 times the measured (real) lifetime of 5 years, namely 50 years or more
(Rodhe & Björkström, 1979; Rodhe, 1992).

To rephrase; an apparent atmospheric CO2 level rise, assumed to be due to Man's
burning of fossil fuel, is being treated with non-linear (non-proportional and non-chemical-equilibrium) non-steady-state modelling, giving theoretical far longer
"lifetimes" than actually measured. When this is not explained to the readers, they are
led astray to get the impression that the "artificial" un-real model "lifetimes" are real
lifetimes.

Or as O'Neill et al. (1994) phrase it: "A growing array of timescales are being
extracted from carbon cycle models and data and their relationships have not been
clear." . . . "This discrepancy has not been adequately explained and is causing
confusion in the literature concerned with the atmospheric "lifetime" of anthropogenic
CO2" . . . "Considering the policy implications of such numbers, it is important that their
meanings and relationships be fully clarified."

Rodhe & Björkström (1979) conclude their treatment of carbon cycle and CO2
lifetime modelling by: "Naturally, we do not claim that such very simplified models of the
carbon cycle, which we have studied, contain the final answer to the very complex
question of how nature will distribute the man-made CO2 emissions between the major
reservoirs. That question should be studied with the aid of much more sophisticated
models which take into account more of our knowledge about the physical and chemical
processes involved."

10. The breakdown of the dogma - carbon isotopes

Suess (1955) estimated for 1953, based on the carbon-14 "Suess Effect" (dilution of
the atmospheric CO2 with CO2 from burning of fossil fuel, void of carbon-14), "that the
worldwide contamination of the Earth's atmosphere with artificial CO2 probably amounts
to less than 1 percent". Revelle & Suess (1957) calculated on the basis of new carbon-14 data that the amount of atmospheric "CO2 derived from industrial fuel combustion"
would be 1.73% for an atmospheric CO2 lifetime of 7 years, and 1.2% for a CO2 lifetime
of 5 years.

This is in conflict with IPCC researchers, who assume that 21% of our present-day
(as of December 1988) atmospheric CO2, the assumed rise in CO2 level since the
industrial revolution, has been contributed from Man's burning of fossil fuel (Houghton
et al., 1990).

This large contradiction between the carbon-14 measurements and the dogma, has
worried many researchers. In order to make Suess' measurements fit the dogma, it
would be necessary to mix the atmospheric fossil-fuel CO2 with CO2 from a different
carbon reservoir five times larger than the atmosphere alone (Broecker et al., 1979).
It was alternatively proposed that the carbon-14-labelled CO2 would act completely
differently than the "ordinary" CO2: "However, the system's responses are not the same
for the CO2 concentration and for isotopic ratios" (Oeschger & Siegenthaler, 1978). The
explanation is given that the CO2 levels will be governed by the constructed evasion
"buffer" correction factor, while on the other hand (strangely enough) the isotope ratios
of the atoms in the very same CO2 molecules would be unaffected by the evasion
"buffer" factor, and further: "would be equal in both reservoirs [the atmosphere and the
ocean's mixed layer] at equilibrium. This explains why the relative atmospheric CO2
increase is larger than the Suess effect" (Oeschger & Siegenthaler, 1978). This cannot
be accepted, when all chemical and isotopic experiments indicate that equilibrium
between CO2 and water is obtained within a few hours (see Section 5 above).

Ratios between the carbon-13 and carbon-12 stable isotopes are commonly
expressed in permil by a so-called delta-13-C notation being the standard-normalized
difference from the standard, multiplied by 1000. The international standard for stable
carbon isotopes is the Pee Dee Belemnite (PDB) calcium carbonate.

CO2 from combustion of fossil fuel and from biospheric materials have delta-13-C
values near -26 permil. "Natural" CO2 has delta-13-C values of -7 permil in equilibrium
with CO2 dissolved in the hydrosphere and in marine calcium carbonate. Mixing these
two atmospheric CO2 components: IPCC's 21% CO2 from fossil fuel burning + 79%
"natural" CO2 should give a delta-13-C of the present atmospheric CO2 of
approximately -11 permil, calculated by isotopic mass balance (Segalstad, 1992; 1996).

This atmospheric CO2 delta-13-C mixing value of -11 permil to be expected from
IPCC's model is not found in actual measurements. Keeling et al. (1989) reported a
measured atmospheric delta-13-C value of -7.489 permil in December 1978,
decreasing to -7.807 permil in December 1988 (the significance of all their digits not
justified). These values are close to the value of the natural atmospheric CO2 reservoir,
far from the delta-13-C value of -11 permil expected from the IPCC model.

From the measured delta-13-C values in atmospheric CO2 we can by isotopic mass
balance also calculate that the amount of fossil-fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is equal to
or less than 4%, supporting the carbon-14 "Suess Effect" evidence. Hence the IPCC
model is neither supported by radioactive nor stable carbon isotope evidence
(Segalstad, 1992; 1993; 1996).

To explain this apparent contradiction versus the IPCC model, the observed
delta-13-C value of atmospheric CO2"must be affected by other heavier [i.e. with high
delta-13-C values] carbon sources, such as is derived from the air-sea exchange
process" (Inoue & Sugimura, 1985). One way to make this happen, would be if the
isotopic exchange from air to sea were different from the isotopic exchange from sea
to air; i.e. a gross non-equilibrium situation would be required. Siegenthaler & Münnich
(1981) were able to construct such a simple theoretical kinetic, non-equilibrium model:
"Diffusion of CO2 into the water, which is rate limiting for mean oceanic conditions,
fractionates the carbon isotopes only little. 13-C/12-C fractionations are found to be -1.8
to -2.3 permil for atmosphere-to-ocean transfer, and -9.7 to -10.2 permil for ocean-to-atmosphere transfer."

Inoue & Sugimura (1985) attempted to verify these kinetic isotope fractionations
experimentally at three temperatures: 288.2; 296.2; and 303.2 Kelvin, versus their
equilibrium values of -8.78; -7.86; and -7.10 permil, respectively, all with uncertainty
given as +/- 0.05 permil. Their reported air to sea fractionations at these temperatures
were -2 +/- 3; -4 +/- 5; and -5 +/- 7 permil, respectively. Their sea to air fractionations
were found to be -10 +/- 4; -13 +/- 6; and -12 +/- 7 permil, respectively. (Reported alpha
fractionation factors and uncertainties have here been recalculated to alpha minus one,
multiplied by 1000, to get comparable fractionation values). They conclude that the
agreement is fairly good with the theoretically deduced values of Siegenthaler &
Münnich (1981). Looking at the reported uncertainties, however, the experimental data
cannot be grouped in three populations: their air-to-sea and sea-to-air data are not
significantly different from their reported air/sea/air equilibrium value at the three
different temperatures. Hence the experimental data cannot be used as evidence for
the proposed theoretical difference in isotopic fractionation for air/sea versus sea/air
CO2 transfer due to differences in kinetic isotope fractionation.

Siegenthaler & Oeschger (1987) touch in their carbon cycle modelling, with carbon
isotopes included, on the possibility that the apparent atmospheric CO2 level increase
is due to marine degassing instead of accumulation of anthropogenic CO2: "We will also
discuss the sensitivity of the model results to uncertainties in the ice core data, to
different model assumptions and to the (unlikely) possibility that the non-fossil CO2 was
not of biospheric, but rather of marine origin." The word "unlikely" in parentheses is
indeed their wording. Their modelling shows ambiguously that: "as expected, the
results are similar to those for the fossil-only input". But their modelling shows a
discrepancy with the ice core CO2 data, in addition to: "it is somewhat surprising that
observations and model agree for 13-C but not for 14-C; this can, however, not be
discussed here any further". In their abstract, however, they conclude on the contrary:
"Calculated 13-C and 14-C time histories agree well with the observed changes."

The carbon cycle modelling of Siegenthaler & Oeschger (1987) run into several
problems making their models fit all the data, leading them to write: "One possibility is
that the assumptions underlying our results are not fully correct, i.e., that either the Siple
ice core data deviate from the true atmospheric concentration history or that the carbon
cycle models used do not yield the correct fluxes. If we dismiss these possibilities, then
other carbon sinks than the ocean seem to exist." For the lack of validity of the Siple
ice core, see Section 4 above.

Based on this kind of modelling, IPCC states as part of their "evidence that the
contemporary carbon dioxide increase is anthropogenic" (their Section 1.2.5; Houghton,
1990): "Third, the observed isotopic trends of 13-C and 14-C agree qualitatively with
those expected due to the CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and the biosphere, and they
are quantitatively consistent with the results from carbon cycle modelling." Such a
correspondence is, however, not evident to the present author.

Segalstad (1992; 1993; 1996) concluded from 13-C/12-C isotope mass balance
calculations, in accordance with the 14-C data, that at least 96% of the current atmospheric CO2 is isotopically indistinguishable from non-fossil-fuel sources, i.e. natural
marine and juvenile sources from the Earth's interior. Hence, for the atmospheric CO2
budget, marine equilibration and degassing, and juvenile degassing from e.g. volcanic
sources, must be much more important; and the sum of burning of fossil-fuel and
biogenic releases (4%) much less important, than assumed (21% of atmospheric CO2)
by the authors of the IPCC model (Houghton et al., 1990).

The apparent annual atmospheric CO2 level increase, postulated to be
anthropogenic, would constitute only some 0.2% of the total annual amount of CO2
exchanged naturally between the atmosphere and the ocean plus other natural sources
and sinks (Section 9 above). It is more probable that such a small ripple in the annual
natural flow of CO2 is caused by natural fluctuations of geophysical processes. We
have no database for disproving this judgment (Trabalka, 1985). Like Brewer (1983)
says it: "Nature has vast resources with which to fool us . . .".

Segalstad's mass balance calculations show that IPCC's atmospheric CO2 lifetime
of 50-200 years will make the atmosphere too light (50% of its current CO2 mass) to fit
its measured 13-C/12-C ratio. This proves why IPCC's wrong model creates its artificial
50% "missing sink" (Segalstad, 1996).

11. Conclusion

The atmospheric CO2 level is ultimately determined by geologic processes. The carbon
on the Earth's surface has come from CO2 degassing of the Earth's interior, which has
released about half of its estimated CO2 contents throughout Earth's history during the
4,500 million years up to now (Holland, 1984). Important geologic processes are
volcanism and erosion, releasing carbon from the lithosphere and the Earth's interior
to the atmosphere - ocean - biosphere system. These processes are counteracted by
sedimentation of carbonate and organic carbon in the hydrosphere (mainly the ocean).
The balance between these two main processes determines the CO2 level in the
atmosphere (e.g., Kramer, 1965; McDuff & Morel, 1980; Walker & Drever, 1988;
Holmén, 1992). "Thus, while seawater alkalinity is directly controlled by the formation
of calcium carbonate as its major sedimentary sink, it is also controlled indirectly by
carbonate metamorphism which buffers the CO2 content of the atmosphere" (McDuff
& Morel, 1980).

In addition there is a short-term carbon cycle dominated by an exchange of CO2
between the atmosphere and biosphere through photosynthesis, respiration, and
putrefaction (decay), and similarly between aqueous CO2 (including its products of
hydrolysis and protolysis) and marine organic matter (Walker & Drever, 1988).

Analogously to the transfer of anthropogenic CO2 to the atmosphere, it seems
appropriate to cite Walker (1994): "Consider, now some perturbation of the system -
for example, the doomsday perturbation that suddenly stops photosynthesis. In 20
years or so, all the carbon in the biota reservoir will be released to the atmosphere,
leading initially to a large increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
But in no time at all, in terms of human generations, that extra carbon dioxide will work
its way down into the very deep sea reservoir where the addition of 2 x 1017 moles to
the 30 x 1017 moles already there will have little effect. The system will not end up with
a lot of extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, even if photosynthesis stops
completely. The figure shows also the fossil fuel rate, which is smaller than the rate of
photosynthesis."

It is nature's coupling between the temporary, short-lived atmospheric reservoir,
with 0.5 x 1017 moles CO2, and the relatively enormous oceanic reservoir, with 30 x 1017
moles of dissolved (and hydrolyzed and protolyzed) CO2 in contact with calcium
carbonate, that determines the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This coupling is in
turn coupled to the much larger lithospheric reservoir. The rates and fluxes of the latter
coupling control the amount of carbon in the surface reservoir of the Earth. All kinds of
measurements show that the real residence time of atmospheric CO2 is about 5 years.

Chemical and isotope equilibrium considerations and the short CO2 residence time
(lifetime) can fully explain the carbon cycle of the Earth. The conclusion of such
reasoning is that any atmospheric CO2 level rise beyond 4% cannot be explained by
accumulation of CO2 from Man's burning of fossil fuel. An apparent CO2 rise can only
come from a much larger, but natural, carbon reservoir with much higher delta-13-C
than the fossil fuel pool, namely from the ocean, and/or the lithosphere, and/or the
Earth's interior. CO2 degassing from the oceans instead of IPCC's anthropogenic
accumulation is indeed made probable by the measurements of a larger CO2 increase
in Atlantic surface waters than in the contemporaneous atmosphere (Takahashi, 1961;
1979). Kondratyev (1988) argues that: "The fact is that the atmospheric CO2 content
may be controlled by the climate" and not the opposite.

Trabalka (1985) concluded: "The available data on past fluctuations in atmospheric
CO2 and climate suggest that our current carbon cycle models, which emphasize
human perturbations, may be missing natural feedback components involving both
terrestrial and marine systems, perhaps even climate-induced "mode switches" in ocean
circulation patterns, which could be very important in understanding changes in both
climate and the carbon cycle over the next century."

Such conclusions will not make the large "doomsday" headings in the news media,
will not make the politicians implement extra taxes or legislations, will not make
expensive conferences organized by the United Nations or other international bodies,
will not make environmental organizations preach about the wickedness of Man, and
will not bring any research support money from governments or research foundations.

IPCC (Houghton et al., 1990) claims in their Section 1.2.5 three evidences that the
contemporary atmospheric CO2 increase is anthropogenic: (1) CO2 measurements from
ice cores show a 21% rise from 280 to 353 ppmv (parts per million by volume) since
pre-industrial times; (2) the atmospheric CO2 increase closely parallels the
accumulated emission trends from fossil fuel combustion and from land use changes,
although the annual increase has been smaller each year than the fossil CO2 input
[some 50% deviation, e.g. Kerr, 1992]; (3) the observed isotopic trends of 13-C and
14-C agree qualitatively with those expected due to the CO2 emissions from fossil fuels
and the biosphere, and they are quantitatively consistent with results from carbon cycle
modelling.

Carbon isotopic trends agree qualitatively with fossil fuel CO2 emissions like stated
by IPCC, but show quantitatively a fossil fuel CO2 component of maximum 4 % versus
the 21% claimed by IPCC. This paper has further examined and rejected the carbon
cycle modelling forming the basis for IPCC evidence. It is shown that carbon cycle
modelling based on non-equilibrium models, remote from observed reality and chemical
laws, made to fit non-representative data through the use of non-linear correction
"buffer" factors constructed from a pre-conceived hypothesis, constitute a circular
argument and with no scientific validity. IPCC's non-realistic carbon cycle modelling will
simply refute reality, like the existence of carbonated beer or soda "pop" as we know
it.

The "Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma is based on the hypothesis that
Man's release of CO2 from fossil fuel burning will cause this extra atmospheric CO2 to
increase the temperature of the lower atmosphere. It is important to note that due to the
atmosphere's extremely low heat capacity, the heat energy accumulated in the
atmosphere from this process will be minute and unable to change the Earth's climate.
This compared to the enormous heat energy stored in the oceans, and the enormous
heat energy required to melt the cryosphere (ice sheets, sea ice, permafrost, and
glaciers). Hence it will be impossible to melt the Earth's ice caps and thereby increase
the sea level just by increasing the heat energy of the atmosphere through a few
percent of added heat absorbing anthropogenic CO2 in the lower atmosphere
(Segalstad, 1996). Further, there exists no proof of a constantly rising trend for the
temperature of the world's lower atmosphere since the industrial revolution (e.g.,
Jaworowski et al., 1992 a; Michaels & Knappenberger, 1996).

A dogma is, according to dictionaries, considered an arrogant and authoritative
declaration of opinion based on a priori principles, not on induction, and often as a
sacrament or commandment for religious belief. Review of the basis for the
"Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" doom makes its components appear neither
supported by reality nor the scientific method of natural sciences, making it rather a
preconceived idea or tenet sharing most features of a dogma.

Acknowledgements: Drs. H.M. Seip and J.S. Fuglestvedt at "Cicero" (the Norwegian
government constituted institute for climate politics) are acknowledged for discussions
leading to the strengthening and clarification of the conclusions of this paper.

References

Arrhenius, S. (1896): On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature
of the ground. London, Edinburgh, Dublin Philos. Mag. J. Sci., Ser. 5, 41, 237-276.

Born in Norway in 1949. University degrees (natural sciences with geology) from the
University of Oslo. Has conducted university research, publishing, and teaching in
geochemistry, mineralogy, petrology, volcanology, structural geology, ore geology, and
geophysics at the University of Oslo, Norway, and the Pennsylvania State University,
USA. At present keeping a professional position as Associate Professor of
Geochemistry at the University of Oslo, with responsibility for stable isotope
geochemistry. He is past head of the Mineralogical-Geological Museum at the
University of Oslo; and past Director of the Natural History Museums and Botanical
Garden of the University of Oslo. He is a member of different international and national
professional working groups and committees.